2015 QCCQ 15981, 2015 QCCQ 15981

Protection de la jeunesse — 152289 2015 QCCQ 15981 JA0940 QUEBEC COURT Youth Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT [...] N° : 525-41-021043-088 DATE : April 20, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING JUDGE : THE HONOURABLE MARIE ARCHAMBAULT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ In the matter of: X born on […], 2007 THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant and A , mother B , father Respondents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 95 of the Youth Protection Act ) ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: The Youth Protection Act forbids the publishing or broadcasting of information allowing for a child or the child’s parents to be identified.

Any person who contravenes this provision commits an offence and is liable to a fine (sections 11.2, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] As required under

Section 90 of the Youth Protection Act, the present judgment confirms in writing the decision rendered orally at the hearing held on April 20 th , 2015. [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) seizes Court of a motion for extension of a decision rendered on May 30 th , 2014, by Honourable Ann-Marie Jones. The Director is seeking a long-term plan for the child, asking the Court to entrust the child to a foster family until her age of majority.

The Director is recommending that the foster home be that of C, where the child currently lives, and that of C, granddaughter of C, where the child could be moved if "something happened". [ 3 ] The revision process was to take place on January 9 th , 2015.

At the mother's request, and because she wanted to contest the recommendations made by the Director, the case was postponed and set for a full-day hearing on March 10 th , 2015. [ 4 ] That day, the attorney representing the mother informs the Court that he has no collaboration from his client, that she has failed to present herself at the meeting set in order to prepare the case and that this morning, the mother has left a message for him at his office indicating that she could not come to Court as she is sick. [ 5 ] The request made by the lawyer to cease representing the mother is denied because the mother has not been informed of the request.

[ 6 ] All parties and witnesses being ready to proceed, the inquiry is started. The mother has the right to be heard and present evidence, should she still wish to contest the recommendations of the Director. Therefore, the continuation of this enquiry will take place on April 20 th , 2015. [ 7 ] On April 20 th , 2015, the mother shows-up late at Court and wishes to contest the recommendations of the Director.

She is no longer represented by attorney but is ready and willing to proceed. [ 8 ] Although she admits partly the facts alleged in support of the motion, she denies that she is not in a position to resume the care of the child and states that she would like the child and her sibling returned to her care as of July 2015. [ 9 ] On behalf of the child, the child's lawyer makes a general admission as to the facts alleged in the motion. The recommendations of the Director are deemed to be in the best interest of the child. [ 10 ] The father of the child is absent from Court and his position is unknown.

CONTEXT [ 11 ] The evidence reveals that the mother has been minimally involved with the youth protection worker and, aside from being present to the visits with her daughter, has failed to follow through with the Court ordered measures. [ 12 ] The mother rarely met with the Director and cancelled or ignored most of the meetings that were set. The mother refused to meet with the worker if not accompanied by an advocate.

After several attempts made by two advocates to reach the mother, the latter was informed that the […] Client Advocacy Department would not be able to advocate for her. [ 13 ] The mother visits her daughter regularly, once every other week, at [house A] where all siblings are present. [ 14 ] It has been difficult for the Director to reach the mother: from April to July 2014, her cell phone was out of service.

Registered mail sent to the mother was not picked up and messages left on her telephone, when not out of service, were left unanswered. [ 15 ] The child continues to be entrusted to the same foster parent, C. The child is attending school regularly and is currently in grade two. [ 16 ] While the only difficulties noted in the fall 2014 were pertaining to the child's reading skills, it appears now that the child also has behavioural difficulties both at home and in school. The child is described by the foster mother as being argumentative. The child has difficulty listening to simple rules.

When in school, she exhibits the same difficult behaviours. She was kicked out from the school bus. [ 17 ] Art therapy is currently provided to the child once a week and a "big sister" visits her at school over lunch once a week. [ 18 ] In February 2015, at the request of the Director, the child underwent a psychoeducational assessment. "The affective and relational spheres of the child's functioning warrant further investigation", concludes the examiner. [ 19 ] The child has regular contacts with her mother and siblings, every other Saturday, under the supervision of [House A].

It is described that, at times, the child's behaviour is more difficult after her visits with her mother. [ 20 ] The father has failed to keep contact with the Director. In fact, it has been impossible for the Director to meet or even speak with the father despite the fact that numerous phone messages were left.

His address is unknown to the Director. [ 21 ] Despite the fact that it was court ordered that the Director had the responsibility to set the frequency and modality of contacts between the child and her father, the foster mother and the father arranged for contacts and phone calls to take place. [ 22 ] The Director states clearly not being against these visits but the Court adds, in support to the wish of the Director to meet the father, that he has the obligation to make himself available to meet with the Director.

THE LAW [ 23 ] In the analysis of this specific facts of this case, the Court deems appropriate to reproduce the dispositions of the Youth Protection Act (YPA) that apply to the situation of the child: 2.2. The primary responsibility for the care, maintenance and education of a child and for ensuring his supervision rests with his parents. 2.3 (...) The parents must, whenever possible, take an active

part in the application of the measures designed to put an end to and prevent the recurrence of the situation in which the security or development of their child is in danger. 4 . Every decision made under this Act must aim at keeping the child in the family environment.

If, in the interest of the child, it is not possible to keep the child in the family environment, the decision must aim at ensuring that the child benefits, insofar as possible with the persons most important to the child, in particular the grandparents or other members of the extended family, from continuity of care, stable relationships and stable living conditions corresponding to the child's needs and age and as nearly similar to those of a normal family environment as possible. Moreover, the parents' involvement must always be fostered, with

a view to encouraging and helping them to exercise their parental responsibilities. (...) 91. (...) The tribunal may include several measures in the same order, provided those measures are consistent with each other and in the interest of the child. It may thus authorize that personal relations between the child and the child's parents, grandparents or another person be maintained, in the manner determined by the tribunal; it may also provide for more than one place where the child may be provided with foster care and state how long the child is to stay at each of those places. (...) 91.1. If the tribunal orders a foster care measure under subparagraph j of the first paragraph of

section 91, the total period of the foster care may not exceed (...) (c) 24 months if the child is six years of age or over on the date the order is made. (...) If the security or development of the child is still in danger at the expiry of the periods specified in the first paragraph, the tribunal must make an order aimed at ensuring continuity of care, stable relationships and stable living conditions corresponding to the child's needs and age on a permanent basis. (...) ANALYSIS [ 24 ] As recommended made by Justice Ann-Marie Jones in her decision of January 2014, the Director has assessed D, granddaughter of C, as a possible foster parent should the child need to leave the care of C.

The Director has no idea as to when a possible move could become necessary no more than the Director can predict the circumstances that would lead to such a move. [ 25 ] The Court understands that the Director is being careful in asking that a child of such young age be entrusted to a person who wishes to continue carrying for the child but who states, frankly, not knowing for how long she will be able to assume that responsibility. [ 26 ] In exploring the possibility that the child continue to be taken care of and fostered within the extended family of the person who has been her main care taker for two and a half years, the Director has in mind to provide the child with continuity of care in maintaining the stable relationships developed with her foster mother and with Mrs.

C. [ 27 ] Although the Law allows the possibility for the Tribunal to order that the child may be provided with foster care for more than one place, the Court, no more than the Director, can foresee the future and establish for how long the child should stay at each of those places.

If and when need be, the Director, or any party, will have the possibility to seize Court and request a revision of the Court ordered measures. [ 28 ] The Director has clearly established that neither parent collaborated with the Director in order to address the issues that led to the involvement of the Director. [ 29 ] Both parents have failed to make themselves available to assume their primary responsibility for the care, maintenance and education of the child. [ 30 ] The parents cannot be reached by the Director so that they can exercise their parental authority in a timely fashion. [ 31 ] As the child has been in placement since June 2012, the maximum duration of placement established by Law have expired.

The evidence is to the effect that the child's return home cannot be expected in the short term. The current foster family is committed to the child and can provide her with stable living conditions. [ 32 ] Under those circumstances, the recommendations of the Director meet the needs of the child and are in her best interest.

AS A CONSEQUENCE AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 33 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child are still compromised; AND, BY VIRTUE OF AND PURSUANT TO THE POWERS GRANTED UNDER SECTIONS 91 AND 91.1 OF THE YOUTH PROTECTION ACT, THE COURT ORDERS THE FOLLOWING MEASURES: [ 34 ] RENDERS a decision aimed at ensuring continuity of care, stable relationships and stable living conditions corresponding to the child's needs and age on a permanent basis; [ 35 ] ENTRUSTS the child to a foster home until her age of majority; [ 36 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the Director of Youth Protection has chosen the current foster family, the one of C; [ 37 ] ORDERS that the coordinates of the foster family remain confidential to the parents; [ 38 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the child and her parents be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 39 ] SETS the minimum frequency of contacts between the child and her mother at once (1) every two (2) weeks; [ 40 ] WITHDRAWS from the parents the exercice of parental authority save their obligation to provide surveillance; [ 41 ] GIVES these responsibilities to C;

[ 42 ] ORDERS that the child receive all the health and care services required by her situation; [ 43 ] ORDERS the parents to collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection; [ 44 ] ORDERS the parents to meet with the worker when requested to do so; [ 45 ] ORDERS that aid, counseil and assistance be provided to the child and her family until her age of majority; [ 46 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 47 ] ORDERS the execution of the present judgment by any peace officer, if necessary. _________________________________ MARIE ARCHAMBAULT, J.C.Q.

Me Nadia Sabik Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Claudine Du Sablon Attorney for the child Date of hearing : March 10 th and April 20 th , 2015